If on the other hand, "kind" has some correspondence with modern groups,
like the equidae, then those who are using kind as a category to avoid the
evolutionary implications of biology, should explain why the kind contains
such a vast difference in chromosome numbers.
The Prezwalski horse, the horse pictured on french caves by the
Cro-magnon's, has 66 chromosomes. Equus caballos, (the regular horse) has
64 chromosomes. They are able to mate and produce fertile offspring
because two of the Prezwalski chromosomes align with one of the horse.
Even the cross between the horse and ass, with 62 chromosomes, --the
mule-- is occasionally fertile. The Mule Society in Great Britain sent me
the following information:
>Date: 16 Jul 96 06:48:01 EDT
>From: Lynne Hamill <100713.553@CompuServe.COM>
>To: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@gnn.com>
>Subject: Fertile mules
>
>Dear Glenn
>
>Yes, some female mules are fertile - but not males. In her book "The
>Mule"(published in 1990), Lorraine Travis says:
>
>"Since 1527 approximately sixty live births of foals to mules have been
>reported in Europe, the USA, South America, North Africa and China"
>
>Her book gives a number of examples, including the case of Old Beck in
>Texas,well-documented by Texas A&M in the 1920s.
>Let us start with a created ancestral population. During the
>course of earth history, it experiences various speciation
>events. Each descendant species shows:
>(a) offspring which look like their parents. This is the
>suggested "language of appearance" meaning of the phrase "after
>their kind".
This definition does not rule out evolution. Each child can look like the
parent, but the looks of each successive parent is somewhat different from
his ancestors. In fact if evolution is true, then every modern individual
looks different than some distant ancestor, but quite similar to his
parents.
Only in this way can the data from paleontology be explained. There is
not one single modern mammalian genus found in rocks older than 55 million
years ago. Of the 1135 living genera:
only 417 had fossil members found in the Pleistocene 10,000-1.8 myr
only 133 had fossil members found in the Pliocene 1.8 myr to 5.5 myr
only 57 had fossil members found in the Miocene 5.5 myr to 23 myr
only 11 had fossil members found in the Oligocene 23 myr to 37 myr
only 3 had fossil members found in the Eocene 37 myr to 55 myr
None have fossil members found in the Paleocene 55 myr to 65 myr.
>(b) hybridisation behaviour which demonstrates common
>developmental pathways and allows linkage to be identified within
>the "family" of genetically-related species.
>
In this case zebra is not in the same kind as the horse and fox and dogs
are not the same kind.
Of the chromosome differences David wrote:
>You say "much evolution has taken place" - which is OK as long
>as you are prepared to distinguish this sort of evolution from
>that which is supposed to bridge the gaps between Phyla, Classes,
>Orders and Families.
Upon what observational data do you say that there is no way to bridge the
gap? That is assumption based upon the presupposition that evolution can
not occur. If the chromosome numbers can change (evolve) within a kind
as much as I have documented, then what is the limit to change across
families? I see absolutely no evidence that the change can not occur.
>It is fair to say that the changes are more
>than seem to be allowed "traditionally" - by which I assume you
>mean either the leaders of 20th Century Young Earth Creationism
>or the perceptions of what 19th Century non-creationists thought
>creationists ought to believe.
>
Yes, I mean precisely that the differences are more than what is allowed
by they YEC's. What do you think a young person, going into biology,
believing the "after their kind" teaching which is so prevalent, is going
to think when he learns of the chromosome number distribution? Do you
think they are going to say "Oh boy, those Sunday School teachers of mine
were correct?" There is a terrible danger in teaching our young things
that are not factually true or have serious logical problems.
>Exactly. Which is why I have tried to elaborate the "language
>of appearance" interpretation of the phrase. [I am conscious
>that Glen has questioned whether the phrase has anything to do
>with reproduction - which I hope to respond to next week).
>
As I noted above, if the phrase has no relationship to modern groups, then
it is a meaningless phrase.
>I would like to pick up on the word "orthodox". To what is Glen
>referring? The views of Morris and YEC popularisers? The
>"early" Linnaeus? or "mature" Linnaeus? "Orthodox" has
>such weighty overtones! - in this area, I don't think there is an
>orthodox view.
I agree with you. Orthodox was an absolutely abysmal choice of words on
my part. I meant "traditional", 'popular", 'common" but not ORTHODOX in
the theological sense.
> Certainly, the idea that "kinds" = "species" is
>refuted by your post. Whether it refutes the idea that "kinds" has a
>technical meaning is something I will leave to any who hold that
>view. But if you hold, like me, to the "language of appearance"
>interpretation of the phrase, your post does not suggest that a
>revision is needed.
>
I agree that kind does not equal species. But I do not agree that a
revision is unneeded. Most people look at the equines and see a similar
kind of animal.
>GM: "In what kind of sense did God create a kind with different
>chromosomal numbers?"
>
>I can't answer this question - how do we know this is what God
>did? At the moment, I see the chromosomal differences as
>emerging with time - linked to speciation within the ancestral
>population.
Grasshoppers have 318 chromosomes. Can they be the same kind as a horse?
But how can a horse and a zebra be the same kind if there is no evolution?
With respect,
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm